Armed people in bars should be encouraged. People stupid enough to arm themselves and then enter a place that exists for the purpose of alcohol consumption, should be encouraged to wipe each other out.

i'm all for gun bearers wiping each other out...i'm just worried that the drummer may get some. and not the good kind.

__________________Can Someone Build Me A Zoom Video Recorder That Is Also A Phone ?

I find it odd that you would begin your post with saying that you don't want to debate guns, then mention points as though debating, they say that you don't want to talk any more about it. If you really mean you don't want to debate something, you would just say that and then write a period and nothing more.

Yes, I guess you're right but I did bow out at the end though.

__________________
Either you have a purpose behind your expression... or you don't.
JoJo Mayer

Armed people in bars should be encouraged. People stupid enough to arm themselves and then enter a place that exists for the purpose of alcohol consumption, should be encouraged to wipe each other out.

The rule to live by when it comes to guns is thus; If you pull out a gun then you should use it :)
Meaning, Don't pull out a gun unless you intend to shoot. Pulling out a gun for no reason is a foolish act.

Good point. Then have gun-free bars with metal detectors. Some places attract morons with guns for a variety of reasons (airports, courtrooms, bars) and the unarmed should be able to choose and set up places where they can enjoy each others' company without having to concern themselves with the possibility that someone else there is armed.

That would concentrate the armed drunken morons in fewer places, increasing the chances of them doing us all a favor by taking each other out of commission. Combine it with a noble political statement and set up bars that require everyone entering to be armed.

I'm not going to get into a gun debate here but you mentioned that people had their homes broken into and they were held hostage. Frankly, anecdotal evidence is irrelevant. I would need to see stats. But, just a quick question, do you know if any of those Texans (whom I assume have guns) actually defended their homes successfully with their guns?

And I know that that ship sailed long ago regarding guns in the US.

It's kind of funny that a New Yorker and a Texan are discussing guns. Anyone can tell how that is going to end up. For those outside the US, New York has the toughest gun control laws in the States and Texas is one of the champions of the pro-gun debate.

Anyway, lets just agree to disagree because we certainly are not going to convince the other of anything.

Take care.

You're not going to see stats. Here's why...

You've mentioned "successful defense" twice now, but what does that even mean? I could hear somebody busting a window during the night, grab a gun, and yell "I have a gun!", causing the perp to change his mind and bolt. Or let's say he actually gets in the house and I shoot him and he dies as a result of his injuries. I'd say in both instances I "successfully defended" my home, yet they have two very different outcomes. In other words, there's no folder to file that in. And that's if the incidents are even reported in the first place, which leads into the answer to your question...

Yes, I do personally know somebody who "successfully defended" their home. Years ago I had a friend who used his garage as a grow house. He was also a small-time dealer. Nice guy and great drummer, just caught up in the wrong line of work and the wrong people. One night, two thugs smashed a window to get into his house. These guys were associates of another dope dealer. He heard what was happening, grabbed a gun and confronted the guys. He didn't shoot, though. Just told them to get the **** out, which they did, promptly. My friend didn't report the incident. Who wants cops in their grow house, right? Yeah, he was into some pretty nefarious business, but it doesn't change the fact that he was still defending his property and potentially even his life.

Also, you seem to think it's ok to use guns for recreational purposes, but obviously not for home defense. Well, unless you only rent guns at the range, you have to take your guns home with you when you're done shooting. So, by default, you would also have the guns to defend your life and property, no? I really, really, really doubt that, in the midst of a break-in, somebody runs to grab a gun and then says "Oh, wait! I only use this gun for recreational purposes. Better find something else lol."

And FWIW, I hate the back-and-forth when it comes to guns, too. And I don't engage in it nearly as much I used to, for the reason you brought up about nobody's mind being changed. But I think gun debate is alright from time to time so long as it stays civil and doesn't descend into name calling and making broad generalizations.

So, fair enough. We shall agree to disagree.

__________________
"Use only that which works, and take it from wherever you can find it." -Bruce Lee

Who wants cops in their grow house, right? Yeah, he was into some pretty nefarious business, but it doesn't change the fact that he was still defending his property and potentially even his life.

I wouldn't exact refer to growing a simple plant as a nefarious business, maybe illegal in some states, but definitely not nefarious, unless somebody gets killed over it. I would consider producing pornography more nefarious than growing pot. I wouldn't doubt that people would protect their porno collection with a gun too.

That would concentrate the armed drunken morons in fewer places, increasing the chances of them doing us all a favor by taking each other out of commission. Combine it with a noble political statement and set up bars that require everyone entering to be armed.

A few weeks after Sandy Hook, the leader of the NRA made a public address. Hundreds of thousands of passionate anti-gun types took to all forms of social media to launch their counter-attack. Many of them were calling for the guy to be shot. Yeah, anti-gun, pro-peace types calling for somebody to be shot......with a gun.

Kinda funny, isn't it?

__________________
"Use only that which works, and take it from wherever you can find it." -Bruce Lee

I wouldn't exact refer to growing a simple plant as a nefarious business, maybe illegal in some states, but definitely not nefarious, unless somebody gets killed over it. I would consider producing pornography more nefarious than growing pot. I wouldn't doubt that people would protect their porno collection with a gun too.

I don't consider gardening to be nefarious, either. The business end of gardening, however, can get pretty shady and dangerous.

__________________
"Use only that which works, and take it from wherever you can find it." -Bruce Lee

I don't consider gardening to be nefarious, either. The business end of gardening, however, can get pretty shady and dangerous.

Which makes it even sillier that it has to be illegal to be a gardener. All the people I meet are really good people, it would be a shame that they would have to sink to such a level just to earn a living.

A few weeks after Sandy Hook, the leader of the NRA made a public address. Hundreds of thousands of passionate anti-gun types took to all forms of social media to launch their counter-attack. Many of them were calling for the guy to be shot. Yeah, anti-gun, pro-peace types calling for somebody to be shot......with a gun.

Kinda funny, isn't it?

Not at all. Sandy Hook...or NRA... nothing humourous at all about either.

A few weeks after Sandy Hook, the leader of the NRA made a public address. Hundreds of thousands of passionate anti-gun types took to all forms of social media to launch their counter-attack. Many of them were calling for the guy to be shot. Yeah, anti-gun, pro-peace types calling for somebody to be shot......with a gun.

Kinda funny, isn't it?

I hear you... The passion of people on either end of the spectrum can get outrageous. Just like the nut that kills an abortion doc for "committing murder".

Crazy comes in all flavors.

__________________
Either you have a purpose behind your expression... or you don't.
JoJo Mayer

I feel very foreign on this forum at times. I've been travelling recently for the first time in my life and found Americans to be a safe haven of familiarity ... but there's obviously a massive gulf between cultures too once you scratch the surface.

Grea, I grew up here, obviously, and even I, as a Californian, was culturally shocked when I moved to the mid-west for a spell. That's all those guys were thinking about. Guns, guns, guns...I must've heard a gun conversation everyday at work. Maybe I'm exagerrating, but even at restaurants I would hear neighboring diners conversations and many of them were about guns. Guns, guns guns...oh ya, it runs deep in that part of the country. Over here, not so much. Maybe it's because I only hang out with musicians who don't carry guns.

Armed people in bars should be encouraged. People stupid enough to arm themselves and then enter a place that exists for the purpose of alcohol consumption, should be encouraged to wipe each other out.

Everyone in NC is taught (in order to get their CCW, legally), once you've consumed alcohol, you are no longer allowed to carry a concealed weapon. So the DD can carry one with no problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobdadruma

The rule to live by when it comes to guns is thus; If you pull out a gun then you should use it :)
Meaning, Don't pull out a gun unless you intend to shoot. Pulling out a gun for no reason is a foolish act.

I see what you're saying, as it is a fundamental (legal) rule - never point your weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot (or destroy). BUT - I have to take my guns out to teach classes (I don't want to kill my students), or to clean them (I don't want to shoot my box of tools), etc... At some point, I take my guns out a lot more than I shoot them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deathmetalconga

Good point. Then have gun-free bars with metal detectors. Some places attract morons with guns for a variety of reasons (airports, courtrooms, bars) and the unarmed should be able to choose and set up places where they can enjoy each others' company without having to concern themselves with the possibility that someone else there is armed.

That would concentrate the armed drunken morons in fewer places, increasing the chances of them doing us all a favor by taking each other out of commission. Combine it with a noble political statement and set up bars that require everyone entering to be armed.

The problem with publicized 'gun free zones', is they are an advertisement to bring guns and do MAXIMUM damage.

Someone (much smarter than me) once said,~"There are three things in common with every firearm committed mass-murder:
#1 A firearm
#2 A person willing to kill (usually with a mental condition that lends itself to this act)
#3 Soft target (or area that firearms are not present or allowed)"

When thinking back - I can't disprove this.

Examples - If you wanted to do the most damage to civilization, would you take a gun:
a) To a school (no gun zone)?
b) To a library?
c) To a biker bar?
d) To a police station?

Would you take a gun to a place where guns are NOT prohibited or where they are? Some people point out that the shipyard tragedy was a NOT a gun free zone - but it was. It is a guarded gun free zone. So the shooter was able to neutralize the guard with a shotgun, then take and use that guard's pistol and neutralize other individuals. Why? Because it was guaranteed that nobody else had guns.

People with guns made these events stop. When did that fucker at Sandy Hook stop? When people with guns showed up. When did the nut at shipyard stop? When people with guns showed up. When do these events end? When people with guns show up.

Want to stop these events? Have people with guns there already, or at least the POSSIBILITY of having guns present. If you allow them, it may introduce enough doubt in the would-be killer to go somewhere else. Crisis averted. Want to risk your life? Try breaking in my house at 2am. Find out if I have any guns.

If you KNOW the resident has no gun, your chances of committing a crime (violent or otherwise), and getting away with it, has just increased exponentially. Want to see crime go up - outlaw guns (see: Hurricane Sandy for reference).

For those that feel comfortable with tough gun laws and restrictions - look at Washington DC. There. I feel safer already. There is no gun violence... ... No wait. That doesn't work.

(There are issues with this approach - just addressing the soft target piece. People tend to forget what deters or stops those who wish us harm.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by opentune

Not at all. Sandy Hook...or NRA... nothing humourous at all about either.

No. NOT humorous. But ironic. Sandy Hook is an example of where you would want to do the most damage - a gun free zone.

Want to setup the next tragedy? Make guns unavailable. There. Just go get some popcorn.

The issue is systemic, and our country was based on individual rights, liberty, and guns. It won't change overnight. And it won't be done by making gun free zones - that just invites lunatics with guns.

Air marshal program is a great example of that. We all know that air marshals travel in plain clothes, and disguise themselves as passengers. You wanna bet that is a deterrent? When the suspicion of guns is present, people tend to think twice (or sometimes - the first time).

Quote:

Originally Posted by opentune

I get ya, funny in the 'strange' way.

I'm not sure if its just the times or the busy world we live in is graduating more nutbars. I mean there has often been homicide, but these mass killings of innocents are really sick.

Definitely a societal issue. There have always been people like this (throughout time), it's just that the world of TV and internet allow these reports to spread more quickly.

And guns are great for equal rights - because now some dumb ass 25 yr old person with no ability to fight, could be physically and mentally disabled, and now has the means to hurt someone or something, with a similar ability of someone else who does know how to fight, but does not have a separate weapon.

Everyone in NC is taught (in order to get their CCW, legally), once you've consumed alcohol, you are no longer allowed to carry a concealed weapon. So the DD can carry one with no problem.

When I got my CC, the instructor threw the whole class for a loop. He asked us what the "legal limit" was for carrying a concealed weapon. People started blurting out guesses....".08".....".05"........".12".

Then after a short pause, he said "There isn't one." Basically meaning that if you're stopped by an LEO, if he so much as has a hunch that you've been drinking, you can lose your license. I don't go to bars these days anyway and I haven't actually carried a gun on me in years, but I would never in a million years combine the two. Pretty good deterrent, IMO.

__________________
"Use only that which works, and take it from wherever you can find it." -Bruce Lee

Grea, I grew up here, obviously, and even I, as a Californian, was culturally shocked when I moved to the mid-west for a spell. That's all those guys were thinking about. Guns, guns, guns.

Lol I'm hearing you, Bon. I've run into guys like that online. When you think about all the beautiful and interesting things in this world to get into it seems odd.

I suppose the danger high levels of gun ownership poses provides some people with the kind of excitement and assertions of manly dominance our jungle ancestors had, which went missing with the red-wine-over-dinner generation. Definitely something primal going on ...

The problem with publicized 'gun free zones', is they are an advertisement to bring guns and do MAXIMUM damage.

Someone (much smarter than me) once said,~"There are three things in common with every firearm committed mass-murder:
#1 A firearm
#2 A person willing to kill (usually with a mental condition that lends itself to this act)
#3 Soft target (or area that firearms are not present or allowed)"

When thinking back - I can't disprove this.

Examples - If you wanted to do the most damage to civilization, would you take a gun:
a) To a school (no gun zone)?
b) To a library?
c) To a biker bar?
d) To a police station?

Would you take a gun to a place where guns are NOT prohibited or where they are? Some people point out that the shipyard tragedy was a NOT a gun free zone - but it was. It is a guarded gun free zone. So the shooter was able to neutralize the guard with a shotgun, then take and use that guard's pistol and neutralize other individuals. Why? Because it was guaranteed that nobody else had guns.

People with guns made these events stop. When did that fucker at Sandy Hook stop? When people with guns showed up. When did the nut at shipyard stop? When people with guns showed up. When do these events end? When people with guns show up.

Want to stop these events? Have people with guns there already, or at least the POSSIBILITY of having guns present. If you allow them, it may introduce enough doubt in the would-be killer to go somewhere else. Crisis averted. Want to risk your life? Try breaking in my house at 2am. Find out if I have any guns.

Shooting rampages are extremely rare, even though the media whip people in a frenzy about them. Your hairy-chested threat assessment is great for the extremely rare and sensational of case of a purposeful mass shooting, but not very relevant to the much more common Drunken Idiot Factor. In the latest round of mass shootings, the shooters fully expected to be shot and killed and they know that going in; the usefuless of other armed people is debatable when the shooter is on a suicide mission.

I encourage the establishment of mandatory-carry bars where there are plenty of drunken idiots ready to show their heroism by shooting every other armed drunken idiot. In such places, everyone thinks they are "a good guy with a gun" stopping a "bad guy with a gun." When the survivors sober up, they will find there were no "good guys with guns" involved, just other armed drunken idiots shooting each other over some mindless squabble. The fewer armed drunken idiots there are, the safer we will all be.

If anyone wants to mellow out and get drunk in the perceived safety of other unarmed people, there should be a place for them too. I guess they'll just have to take their chances with the incredibly rare event of a mass shooting in exchange for no Drunken Idiot Factor. Property owners can and do establish very effective gun-free zones and I encourage people to exercise their Fifth Amendment rights to prohibit or mandate guns on their property.

I agree with JasperGTR wholeheartedly. When you take away guns, the only people left with them are criminals. Oddly enough, no anti-gun advocates ever seem to have a good response to that. There are tons of statistics showing that more guns = less violent crime (or that less guns = more violent crime, however you want to see it). Look at Chicago's violent crime trends lately.

Anyone who claims that taking away guns will make themselves or their families safer has obviously not done their research. Unfortunately, them pushing for laws with ignorance means that I might be unable to protect MY family someday. It's terrible.

That being said, guns should only be pulled out if you are prepared to shoot. There was absolutely no reason for that guy to show his gun in practice. The entire idea behind concealed weapons is that you AREN'T showing them off. Stupid. That dude is the reason people hate guns so much. The only person who should know you're packing is your significant other, and maybe not even them.

If you are doing what you are supposed to, that gun should never make it's way out of the holster when not at home unless someone is trying to end your life.

EDIT: Also, a bar or anything other place that encourages drinking is not a place for your gun, legal or not.

I agree with JasperGTR wholeheartedly. When you take away guns, the only people left with them are criminals. Oddly enough, no anti-gun advocates ever seem to have a good response to that. There are tons of statistics showing that more guns = less violent crime (or that less guns = more violent crime, however you want to see it). Look at Chicago's violent crime trends lately.

I'm a gun owner and I do have a good response to that:

Lots of people should be prohibited from owning guns and/or having access to them, not just criminals. These include: mental defectives, violent people, men who are about to kill their families, men who are stalking women and children and people who want to wipe out dozens of people in a few minutes. In some cases, we can keep guns out of the hands of these people through better enforcement of laws or closing loopholes. In other cases, we can't.

Like the majority of gun owners in the US, I support reasonable restrictions aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, insane people, children, drunken idiots and people with violent histories. As long as the regulations are carefully written, fairly enforced and correctly targeted, they will help reduce gun violence.

Shooting rampages are extremely rare, even though the media whip people in a frenzy about them. Your hairy-chested threat assessment is great for the extremely rare and sensational of case of a purposeful mass shooting, but not very relevant to the much more common Drunken Idiot Factor. In the latest round of mass shootings, the shooters fully expected to be shot and killed and they know that going in; the usefuless of other armed people is debatable when the shooter is on a suicide mission.

I encourage the establishment of mandatory-carry bars where there are plenty of drunken idiots ready to show their heroism by shooting every other armed drunken idiot. In such places, everyone thinks they are "a good guy with a gun" stopping a "bad guy with a gun." When the survivors sober up, they will find there were no "good guys with guns" involved, just other armed drunken idiots shooting each other over some mindless squabble. The fewer armed drunken idiots there are, the safer we will all be.

If anyone wants to mellow out and get drunk in the perceived safety of other unarmed people, there should be a place for them too. I guess they'll just have to take their chances with the incredibly rare event of a mass shooting in exchange for no Drunken Idiot Factor. Property owners can and do establish very effective gun-free zones and I encourage people to exercise their Fifth Amendment rights to prohibit or mandate guns on their property.

You may have missed the part where I was referencing LEGAL CCW carriers (in reply to your post about bars that allow CCW holders to carry in establishments). In this case, I'd agree, but please go back and reread the part where the idiot is defined as the person still carrying a weapon after the first drink is consumed. I think that is where our disconnect is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by opentune

Numbers speak. Gun laws, and the statistics of these kinds of tragedies in other countries suggest the opposite of what you state.

But I fully understand the complexities of how 'arms' are embedded in the Constitution.

Our country is relatively young, and founded on much different principles and times than other nations. There are different ethics and societal views. This is a whole other conversation, that DOES relate to gun violence, but I believe this is outside our current discussion.

As an Australian, I often feel sorry for a lot of Americans, who always cite the 'rights' about carrying guns but hardly ever do I hear about the responsibility.

Here in Australia guns were outlawed when some angry halfwit took out 35 people in Tasmania.

The population is dumbing dowm, and people are less educated, less responsible, more desperate and doing it tougher than ever. Allowing these people to have guns is ludicrous in my opinion.

Ah, yes. The good ol' "but they took our guns away in Australia and we're doing just fine" argument.

Well, good for you guys! But one thing that the Australians, Canadians, and Europeans continue to neglect time and time again is that your countries do not share the same historical and cultural ties to guns that the United States does. We've had guns since the very beginning. Our country was built by guns. And we've defended our homes and property with them ever since. Our law enforcement agencies rely on them on a daily basis.

It's not that your theory is a bad one, it's just that it's 150 years to late. If this dialog was happening way before the time of Samuel Colt and John Moses Browning, then maybe the U.S. would be like Aus, Europe, and the Canadians. But like I said in a previous post, that ship sailed for us a long time ago.

__________________
"Use only that which works, and take it from wherever you can find it." -Bruce Lee

The rule to live by when it comes to guns is thus; If you pull out a gun then you should use it :)
Meaning, Don't pull out a gun unless you intend to shoot. Pulling out a gun for no reason is a foolish act.

I'm pretty sure that in most states, not only is it a foolish act, but it's also an illegal act - even (especially) with a concealed carry license.

I'm just curious, but is there a reason that you probably would never own a gun? I know it is a personal decision, and have no problem with anyone's decision to own or not own a gun. But I do often wonder why that some people seem to not want to own one when they have no issues with gun ownership. Again, this is just curiosity.

Why are we all denied the right to carry machine guns? Criminals have them so why does the interfering government draw the line at semi automatic weapons? The world would be a happier place if everyone walked around with an Uzi on their shoulder - especially undertakers and chiropractors ...

Why are we all denied the right to carry machine guns? Criminals have them so why does the interfering government draw the line at semi automatic weapons? The world would be a happier place if everyone walked around with an Uzi on their shoulder - especially undertakers and chiropractors ...

Why are we all denied the right to carry machine guns? Criminals have them so why does the interfering government draw the line at semi automatic weapons? The world would be a happier place if everyone walked around with an Uzi on their shoulder - especially undertakers and chiropractors ...

I think each vehicle should come with an MP5 (or variant). Road rage? That will work itself out. You either stop driving recklessly, or you shoot it out with the offender/offended person.

Put them in every house - I bet unlawful entry, breaking and entering, theft, etc... will drastically drop off... I don't often bet, but when I do, I bet on guns.